Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 27.
Published in final edited form as: Ear Hear. 2020 Aug 7;42(1):180–192. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000916

TABLE 2.

Statistical results when comparing eCAP parameters across electrode locations for three study groups.

eCAP Variables Statistical Test CND NSCN Adult
t0 ANOVA F(2,69)=6.59, p=0.002 F(2,93)=4.46, p=0.014 F(2,69)=6.47, p=0.003
HSD B<A, p=0.002 M>A, p = 0.012 B>A, p = 0.002
eCAP threshold ANOVA F(2,69)=6.51, p=0.003 F(2,93)=12.40, p<0.001 F(2,69)=6.47, p=0.003
HSD B<A, p = 0.002 B<M, p<0.001 B>A, p=0.007
M>A, p<0.001 M>A, p=0.001
Slope of I/O function ANOVA F(2,69)=0.11, p=0.893 F(2,93)=1.15, p=0.322 F(2,69)=2.20, p=0.118
HSD NS NS NS
N1 latency ANOVA F(2,69)=0.22, p=0.807 F(2,93)=2.91, p=0.060 F(2,69)=5.00, p=0.009
HSD NS NS B>A, p=0.007

ANOVA: analysis of variance; HSD: Tukey’s honest significant difference post-hoc test; CND: cochlear nerve deficiency study group; NSCN: normal-sized cochlear nerve study group; Adult, adult study group; B: basal electrode; M: middle electrode; A: apical electrode; NS: not significant; t0: estimate of absolute refractory period derived from the refractory recovery function; eCAP: electrically-evoked Compound Action Potential; I/O: input/output